In the epilogue to Marxism and Totality, Martin Jay remarked that ‘if one had to find a common denominator among the major figures normally included in the post-structuralist category—Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault, Jacques Lacan, Roland Barthes, Gilles Deleuze, Jean-François Lyotard, Julia Kristeva, Philippe Sollers and their comrades avant la lettre, Georges Bataille, Maurice Blanchot and Pierre Klossowski—it would have to be their unremitting hostility towards totality’.footnote1 Derrida offered a reality of ‘holes’ rather than ‘wholes’; Foucault substituted the analysis of rarity for the search for totalities; Lacan denigrated the supposed wholeness of the mirror stage; Barthes attacked the ideology of the unified text; Bataille wrote of fleeing from ‘the horror of reducing being to totality’.
Martin Jay’s most recent book, Downcast Eyes,footnote＊ features the same cast of characters as the epilogue to his earlier one (plus the Surrealists, Merleau-Ponty, Sartre and Althusser from the main body of the text) but uses a different script. The common denominator is now hostility to vision: Bataille is not in flight from totality but abandoning ‘the world of the civilized and its light’; Barthes longs for abstinence from images; Lacan dismisses the specularity of the mirror stage; Foucault subverts the empire of the gaze; Derrida finds insights in blindness. In this version of postwar French intellectual history, a succession of thinkers grapples not with Lukács’s concept of totality but with Cartesian perspectivalism. What is intriguing is that it is the same writers and often the same texts that are used to exemplify both theses.
To note the overlap between Marxism and Totality and Downcast Eyes is not to suggest that Jay has just repackaged his old research. Far from it. Downcast Eyes provides a comprehensive account of its own subject, beginning with a review of the development of the discourse of the visual
The thesis Jay presents in Downcast Eyes was developed in several earlier papers—notably ‘In the Empire of the Gaze’ (1986), ‘Ideology and Ocularcentrism’ (1987), ‘The Rise of Hermeneutics and the Crisis of Ocularcentrism’ (1988) and ‘Scopic Regimes of Modernity’ (1988).footnote2 In these essays, Jay interprets contemporary cultural change in terms of a shift in the cultural significance and forms of vision. The basic premiss is the assumption that vision was the dominant sense of the modern era, and Cartesian perspectivalism the dominant model of vision. But, according to Jay in the ‘Empire of the Gaze’, the ‘anti-visual discourse’ of twentiethcentury thought, and in particular the work of Michel Foucault, has now pointed the way to an ‘anti-ocular counter-enlightenment’.footnote3 In the later essays, Jay modifies this position slightly, suggesting that Cartesian perspectivalism is being superseded, not so much by anti-visual discourse, as by an alternative, previously marginalized scopic regime, which (following Christine Buci-Glucksmann) he terms ‘Baroque vision’.footnote4 However, unlike the ‘absolute ocularcentrism’ of Cartesian perspectivalism, the Baroque scopic regime recognizes ‘the inextricability of rhetoric and vision. . .and accepts the irreducible linguistic moment in vision and the equally insistent visual moment in language’.footnote5 Thus, even though the relationship of the visual and the verbal may not have been reversed, Jay is in no doubt that, relative to what went before, ‘Our increasing interest in the truths of interpretation rather than the methods of observation bespeaks a renewed respect for the ear over the eye as the organ of greatest value.’footnote6 And he concludes that ‘We may well be entering a new period of distrusting vision, an era reminiscent of the other great iconoclastic moments in Western culture.’footnote7
In these essays, several, possibly incompatible interpretations seem to be jostling for position. It is unclear whether, according to Jay, contemporary cultural developments involve a shift from vision to the other senses, the rejection of the senses, or merely a transfer from one type of vision to another. And as the denigration of vision is variously described as a ‘counter-enlightenment’, a ‘Baroque scopic regime’, and an ‘iconoclastic moment’—designations that, between them, recall much of post-Reformation European intellectual life—it is difficult to determine which periods of cultural history anti-ocularcentrism is superseding and which it is recapitulating. One might have expected Downcast Eyes to resolve some of these difficulties, but all of the competing interpretations are repeated. The book is thus not so much the final statement of an argument as an encyclopaedia, a resource for future researchers that is all the more useful because it stands unguarded by a clearly defined thesis of its own. Of course, the organizing principle remains the belief that, from Bergson to Lyotard, French thinkers have distrusted vision. But it is a thesis that needs to be defended as well as documented, for it could be argued that the attitudes described as derogatory are actually more ambiguous, perhaps even celebratory, and that the distrust expressed by some thinkers has as its object something other than vision.